Gray v. Colvin

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 27 Motion for Reconsideration and Hearing. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/16/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:13-CV-615-BO TERENCE GRAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) v. CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ORDER ) ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE 27]. Defendant did not respond, and the time for doing so has expired making the matter ripe for ruling. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On March 24, 2010, plaintiff applied for supplemental security income ("SSI") based on disability, under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1381-1383f. After his application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on February 8, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying the claims. The Appeals Council denied Mr. Gray's request for review thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. This Court affirmed the decision ofthe Commissioner on March 7, 2014. Prose plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of that order. DISCUSSION In order to succeed on a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the movant must demonstrate that the judgment under reconsideration should be altered or amended. The Fourth Circuit has identified three circumstances that justify altering or amending a judgment: (1) to incorporate an intervening change in the law, (2) to incorporate new evidence which was unavailable when the court made its decision, and (3) to rectify a clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice. See Bogart v. Chappell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'! Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff appears to contend that denying him benefits constitutes a manifest injustice. The Court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ' s decision that there are jobs available in the national economy which plaintiff can perform. Plaintiff now argues that evidence in the record has been overlooked and the Court has been misled as to the extent of plaintiffs disability. Upon consideration and review of the arguments and administrative record, the Court does not find that it has reached the wrong decision in affirming the Commissioner. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE 27] is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 16_ day of April, 2014. ~W- TERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?